Here are the topics that have been cooking.  Commits prefixed with '-' are
only in 'pu' while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'.  The ones
marked with '.' do not appear in any of the branches, but I am still
holding onto them.

The topics list the commits in reverse chronological order.  The topics
meant to be merged to the maintenance series have "maint-" in their names.

I was this close (shows thumb and index finger almost touching) to merge
js/notes to master and declare 1.6.2-rc0 but decided against it, because I
thought I need to at least have heard about somebody who used it before
doing so.  Perhaps I'll try it out myself to keep track of commits that
happened between 1.6.1 and master that need to be cherry-picked to maint,
or something silly like that.  In any case, my prediction is that -rc0
would look like what 'next' tonight looks like, nothing more, not much
less (I'd probably drop jc/blame).

----------------------------------------------------------------
[New Topics]

* jc/refuse-push-to-current-1.7.0 (Sat Jan 31 17:34:05 2009 -0800) 1 commit
 - Refuse updating the current branch in a non-bare repository via
   push

This is for 1.7.0.

* js/maint-remote-remove-mirror (Wed Feb 4 11:06:07 2009 -0500) 2 commits
 + builtin-remote: make rm operation safer in mirrored repository
 + builtin-remote: make rm() use properly named variable to hold
   return value

* ek/maint-filter-branch-bare (Tue Feb 3 13:27:03 2009 -0500) 1 commit
 + filter-branch: Fix fatal error on bare repositories

* tr/add-p-single (Wed Feb 4 21:12:39 2009 +0100) 2 commits
 - add -p: print errors in separate color
 - add -p: prompt for single characters

Will move to 'next'; it may or may not mature in time for 1.6.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[Stalled and may need help and prodding to go forward]

* jc/merge-convert (Mon Jan 26 16:45:01 2009 -0800) 1 commit
 - git-merge-file: allow converting the results for the work tree

This is a ...
[ message continues ]

If you *do* squash the top two commits due to the surprisingly expensive
--medium check level, what is the whole point of the series?

That is, if I can have a reasonably thorough check only by passing an
option to 'git fsck', then why would I want to choose --medium when I can
have --full for only a 30% higher price (according to the timings you gave)?

-- Hannes

--

[ message continues ]

I'd like to see the first patch (tree.c: allow read_tree_recursive()
to traverse gitlink entries) get into 1.6.2 (that would allow me to
add some nifty tree traversal to cgit). But the rest of the patches
needs more discussion/review before they're even 'next'-worthy; I'll
try to post an updated series during the weekend.

--
larsh
--

[ message continues ]